Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 52/2015
[2015] NZSC 112

BETWEEN

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person K Laurenson for the Respondents
Judgment:	24 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Background

Mr Rabson applies for leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of Randerson J.[1] In that decision, Randerson J upheld the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs for Mr Rabson’s appeal.
[1]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZCA 186.
Mr Rabson’s underlying appeal relates to judicial review proceedings instituted in the High Court against the Registrar of this Court and other defendants.

Application for Leave to Appeal

Mr Rabson seeks leave to appeal on two grounds. First, the applicant submits that Randerson J’s decision breached s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by employing a procedure which limited his access to justice and prevented his right to be heard. He submits this is to be contrasted with another case in the Court of Appeal at the same time.[2] Secondly, Mr Rabson submits that Randerson J based his judgment on the basis that the “the New Zealand Supreme Court needs to make the decision”.

Our Assessment

[2]Houghton v Saunders [2015] NZCA 141.

As to the first ground, a similar submission was rejected by this Court in Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court.[3]
[3]Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2015] NZSC 74 at [5]. See also Creser v Creser [2015] NZSC 104 at [5] where the same claim was rejected.
As to the second ground, Randerson J was merely stating his view that Mr Rabson’s appeal is not one a reasonable and solvent litigant would pursue.[4]
[4]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [35].
No matter of general or public importance arises. Nor is there a risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for leave to appeal from Malcolm Edward Rabson against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice. The application sought to appeal a decision of Randerson J, which upheld the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s decision to refuse to waive security for costs in Mr Rabson's appeal. The underlying appeal concerns judicial review proceedings instituted by Mr Rabson against the Registrar of the Supreme Court and other defendants. The applicant argued that the refusal to waive security for costs limited his access to justice and prevented his right to be heard, contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He also contended that Randerson J's decision was based on a mistaken view that the matter was not one a reasonable and solvent litigant would pursue. The Court considered these arguments and concluded that the first ground had been rejected previously and was not of general or public importance. The second ground was merely Randerson J's view on the appeal's merits and did not indicate a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court assessed the application and found that no matter of general or public importance arose. The Court noted that a similar claim had been rejected previously and that the refusal of security for costs did not prevent Mr Rabson from accessing justice. Furthermore, the Court determined that Randerson J's decision did not indicate a risk of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Mr Rabson was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. This decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that appeals are not frivolous and that security for costs can be necessary to prevent an abuse of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established